Skip to main content

About your Search

20130329
20130406
STATION
MSNBCW 23
CSPAN2 22
CSPAN 18
KQED (PBS) 7
CNBC 6
CNNW 6
FBC 6
KRCB (PBS) 4
LINKTV 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
KCSM (PBS) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 114
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 116 (some duplicates have been removed)
number of things, stories about the economy, stories of the foreign policy, etc.. what prompted me to write this though is the benghazi attack. it became clear that the political news media rather than focusing on a story of foreign policy failure and a president that promised the muslim world and was failing to produce eight it significantly destroyed al qaeda yet we see the terrorists acting up again. instead of that story will talk about the net from the gap and immediately he probably didn't handle the situation well with his press conference he called it the wrong time and said the wrong things but there was an actual real policy story about the guy that runs the entire foreign policy apparatus in the united states and there really does seem that -- i used to work for robert and he used to say that a reporter is someone that would sell his soul for a good story but it turns out that when it might make barack obama look bad or his presidency look like a familiar, reporters suddenly lose a lot of intellectual curiosity. and often when you have a news media and especially its 90
declaration. >> cyber sabotage hacking alarms foreign policy experts. they fear that international rules of conduct forged over two centuries can be undermined by cyber technology. here's a quote from a preeminent foreign policy expert and former u.s. national security advisor. "leaders can now use long- distance air drones for lethal strikes across national borders. computer viruses can disrupt the military-industrial assets of rivals. a rogue but technologically sophisticated state can now gain the capacity to launch a nonlethal but paralyzing cyber attack on the socioeconomic system and most important state country. the world community is witnessing an increasing reliance by state on covert acts of violence without withou declarations of war." mort, how important is that? >> i think it's critical to our national security. people are not fully aware how much risk there. you could break down any kind of air travel, train travel, a huge portion of our economy would come to a screeching halt. >> wall street? >> wall street for sure. all of our electric utilities, all of these things could
, kennedy instructs his national security advisor, george bundy that he wants them all foreign-policy issue range of opinions, not one opinion, not to come of a long continuum. so kennedy gets every single position on every issue that from create. then of course we know 50 years ago, october 1962, the cuban missile crisis in the world came very close to being blown out. after -- that 10 days after, kennedy called fromm. we of course don't have the content, though he said how do you avoid a mess like this again? in june of 63, kennedy gives his famous american university speech, his most important foreign-policy speech. and what does he say? essentially, i don't like the russians come you don't like the russians, but were going to get loan up if we don't deal with the russians seriously. we have to do it in a sequential way, pushing for a disarmament position, have them push, so forth. some of the words and sentence are in the american university speech. i could go on and on, but it's amazing how much political action you see. he's got other lives as an Émigre from the holocaust, of course
it sheds on the process of developing a foreign policy. and do all the moving parts work together in what are the best ways? the response to any issue confronting our nation has to survive a complex, it including the white house, state department department, defense department, a justice department and probably others, not to mention the subgroups in each of these establishments we can we counted on to disagree with one another. different world views embedded in the government and so many ways to fail. in essence this book is a primer for a president how he earthy -- she should think about organizing for policy initiatives and what role the white house had vs. the state department and defense department. we are fortunate elliott will be here and will talk about half an hour. then we will convene in the atrium for cocktails and that will mention once again you have an opportunity there to purchase this remarkable book in our bookstore and i am sure he would be happy to autograph it for you. i thank you for coming and let me introduce elliott abrams. [applause] >> thank you very much. first
weapons state remains most significant immediate foreign-policy challenge of president barack obama second term. knowing the stakes and the perils of this sometime ago, more than two years ago the atlantic council launched an arent task force and we recently asked candidate in an effort to move america and its allies from a stand for something that's been overwhelmingly tacked six to something a little more strategic, taking a look of the broader context of the region, taken a look at iran's domestic politics, taking a look of abstract perspective lost in the heat of the arguments over iran would been trying to provide more light. i want to thank at the outset of the atlantic council board member, stuart eisenstadt, who has served as cochair of the task force throughout and initially as cochair of senator chuck hagel, our chairman who has left to become secretary of defense as you know was not involved in the vetting or approval of this final report, but the report does apply what we've learned through two years of examination at the atlantic council p6 issue brief, 25 event. i want to tha
interest in richard nixon's the five domestic agenda. everybody's been interested in the foreign policy side opening to china and the end of the war on vietnam. but in noticed this in the second term of the bush administration there was more interest in the domestic policy. it's a real problem for historians because on the tapes, richard nixon is and always happy about his domestic policy. i was wondering since your back looking at the period for richard nixon, where would you put him in the new deal in the 1950's? would you say he's interested in a continuation of the new deal, has he begun to doubt the new deal? what role does he see them playing in society? >> i think that he had no desire to undo the new deal. he was a congressman very much in favor of the catastrophic health plan. don't forget when nixon was growing up the family wasn't poor but he had two brothers that died of tuberculosis and wasn't very good health care. one brother was 7-years-old and his older brother died when he was 25. and so. they voted for it and even if he didn't support the environmental protection agen
-un has turned the hyperbole dial all the way up to 10. one foreign policy expert outside the white house said the problem is, his father knew where the line was, but it's not clear that kim jong-un does. the problem with all of this is that kim could lead to a miscalculation, which could ultimately provoke south korea to respond. white house officials watching this very closely tonight. lester? >> kristen welker at the white house. thanks. >>> it's being called one of the worst public school cheating scandals in memory. for years teachers allegedly altered answers on standardized tests to improve results in atlanta. now dozens of educators have been indicted, including a former superintendent. nbc's gabe gutierrez has more tonight. >> reporter: it's one of the largest cheating scandals ever in public education. former atlanta superintendent beverly hall and 34 other educators indicted friday on racketeering charges. investigators say they conspired to erase wrong answers on standardized tests, often for money. >> dr. hall had a contract that was set up to pay her bonuses when she achieve
is this friday. the top european union foreign policy negotiator met with iran 's a top negotiator and there was a bit of an awkward moment because they never shake hands. it is protocol. is cautiously optimistic. but nobody here is really expecting any miracles. there was some surprise we were even having these talks at this particular point in time. we've got elections coming up in a few months, and the feeling was they might not be able to do much negotiating until the elections were over. back in february, which was a couple of months ago, we had high-level talks here. the world powers had given a theysal to the iranians, wanted the iranians still to halt enrichment of uranium to 20% levels but there was a little bit of wiggle room. they had been offered the chance to be able to keep a little for medical purposes. and they not being asked to completely shut down the underground facility where a lot of the enrichment is believed to be taken place -- taking place. it would be over a six-month. of time -- period of time. they are awaiting the iranians official response. >> north k
. in fact, it's not the point of foreign policy. the point is to achieve america's national interests. >> shannon: we are having that discussion because of you. we ask you to vote in the lightning poll and the image of leadership won with 50% of the vote. so let's talk about it with our panel. back for more. charles, i'll start with you, how is the u.s. perceived abroad and should we care? >> no, we shouldn't. the reason is randy newman had a song, they all hated us anyhow so let's drop the big one now. that is exaggerated but ever since we became a great power, of course, everybody hates us because we are the big guy on the block but can they respect us and protect our interests. so liberals were agog what the numbers were when bush was in office and obama was going to make everybody love the united states, his numbers plummeted because when you have to defend american interests people l won't like it but we don't care. >> shannon: what do you think about that or trying to do both? >> president obama has high favorite built ratings. to remake america was so high that his numbers have
north korean with a foreign policy writer. then, former defense undersecretary and the former ambassador to south korea. unites military remains an essential tool of american power. what must be used for security hallenges today. >> secretary chuck hagel yesterday while most of this morning's "washington journal" will be devoted to looking at north korea. we want to start off a little more broadly and get your views on the role of the u.s. military worldwide. here is the "new york times" article reporting on defense cretary hagel's speech yesterday. budget con strants forcing an overhaul in military operations, hagel says. facing inevitable steep cuts in military spending even as globalt threats remain high. said wednesday that he is being forced to consider fundamental changes in how the pentagon defends american interests and conducts its daily business. in his first major address as secretary -- addressing an audience, mr. hagel offered no specific cancellations, trims or shifts in pentagon spending accounts, >> host: again, role of the u.s. military worldwide is our topic
, in the various agencies, and externally in the foreign policy establishment, and in the citizenry. >> guest: well, you know, i think there's still a shocking kind of lack of knowledge of both of these countries. iraq, obviously, less important now that we don't have troops there. we're getting out of afghanistan, but there really -- the start of these conflicts, at the height of them, there really wasn't the sort of rich nuanced knowledge of these countries, they're societies, their traditions, cultures, that we need to be able to engage in these things with some prospect of a meaningful outcome. and that exists -- the fault here is within the academy? within the think tank world ask the outside of government world, and then inside government, inside the intelligence community, inside the worlds of dip diploma si and foreign aide. shockingly few people with the necessary language skills, the necessary regional expertise. we just haven't built that talent, nor did we -- once the war started, nor did we mobilize people quickly enough. did we really have no to have an army of pashtun speakers in 200
proliferation. so again, andrea, let's face it. this has not been a u.s. foreign policy success. for years, this has been something that our country has focused on. probably not in the way that we should. we now have a country that has those weapons. whether they can deliver it or not. obviously we don't think that they can actually deliver a weapon to the u.s. at this point in time. but the fact is that this destabilizes the region. it causes our allies to be concerned. we need to focus on this in a very, very different way. again, a country that has tremendous economic issues. this is the way they hold on to power is through these threats. and having outside enemies that they focus on in this way and we've got to figure out a way to have a better foreign policy approach to north korea and get them denuclearized. otherwise this is just going to continue as they increase their ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction. >> senator bob corker, thank you very much. thanks for joining us today from tennessee. >> thank you. >>> and next we will be live from south africa with the very lates
foreign policy and a foreign policy that's premised on the notion of of limits to what american military power can accomplish. i think that is the answer. so i don't think at least over these last ten years of war that the american people have been morally connected to these two wars like they were with regard to vietnam. your other point about time and how long these kinds of wars take, you're right. i mean, a rational strategy that sought to use armed nation building or counterinsurgency to achieve -- if that's -- to achieve a policy aim, then a rational strategy would say and come out front and be honest about it that if we're going to apply armed nation building to keep al-qaeda at bay in afghanistan, then it is going to take a long time. and it's not going to take 18 months or eight years or 18 years. we're talking about a multigenerational effort. but my point in my talk all along was if we're doing strategy right, the way i explained it, and especially with regard to afghanistan, we have this very, very limited core policy aim which was the destruction of al-qaeda which was pretty
it there is a fundmental inconsistency in this president's foreign policy when it come to intervention when it comes to this regard. and we are trying to do business with countries that do support and why do you think that we haven't seen evidence that the white house is putting more pressure on the nation to get assad to back down. they could take step to force their hand. >> and looking at the approach to the middle east one thing jumps out to you. the arab spring broke out a couple of years ago. these regimes were allies of the united states and cooperating with the united states in key areas . obviously hosnimubarrack was a key ally . by the time barack obama became president, he was providing the united states with really important intelligence about the muslim brotherhood movements in north africa . he is gone . you have muslim brotherhood and we have had chaos in all places. i submit to you in the syrian example this president has no interest in seeing assad survive and he is interested in seeing the muslim brotherhood rise to power in syria . they announced the development of the new politic
's a variety of opinions on what iranian foreign policy should be in tehran. but my argument is that u.s. policies effectively containing iran's ambitions even if it develops nuclear weapons. the policy of sanctions has undoubtedly led to a declining economy, as barbara said. it is affecting iranian's goodwill towards the united states, but it's also having some practical effect in terms of u.s. objectives. as iran's economy gets weaker, its impact tehran's ability to project power in the region. thank you will have less money to fund terrorist groups like hezbollah and hamas. and really maintain its influence in the wake of the arab spring. and it is really the arab spring, the regional dynamic within the middle east that are really containing iran's ambitions along with u.s. policy. let's look at what's going on primarily in syria. syria is iran's key with influence to the arab world. iran is a shield priority country that always faced difficulties and expanding and enforcing its influence in the region. this will severely impact iran's ability to project power, and the a ring govern
to any of the major cities in america, walked into a fancy restaurant and talk about foreign policy with the folks in that restaurant, i will take you to the diner in southern delaware out in the middle and you sit down with a bunch of farmers and they can talk foreign policy literally. they know more about what is going on because they know the folks that want to settle over there and that is what you all are about. i especially want to start by thanking fred. he has done incredibly important work and we owe him a great deal. fred, we owe you a great deal of help for what you have done to boost american exports. but every single job that you have ever taken, you have done extremely well. and i want you to know and i mean this seriously and personally and on behalf of the president we appreciate your dedication more than you know. and so it is an honor also to be with the rest of you this afternoon to have a chance to speak with so many people on the front lines of our economic renewal. i a understand probably better than almost anyone can you understand almost better than anyone th
's political dynamic in the decision-making and iranian foreign policy. he has numerous publications at rand, including israel and iran, a dangerous rivalry. he has worked on iran and israel. i believe you have a new publication coming out also? up coming publication? can we say with the name is? iran after the bomb. very provocative. but also want to thank alireza because is a pinch-hitter for barry who could not be with us today. for personal reasons. sober liberty pleased that he would come. i'm going to ask greg to come up and say a few words first and then alireza and then we'll take your questions. thank you. >> thank you, barbara. i'm very happy to help launched the latest publication of the atlantic council's iran task force. i want to thank the council for this report, as well as the issue briefs and panel discussions which preceded it. today's release is the latest in a number of quality reports on the iran nuclear issue that have been published in the first quarter of 2013. i have to mention the arms control association did a report since the iran briefing book. i would also menti
importantly we have seen no indications of political change or moderation of their foreign policy. >> woodruff: do you see concrete, robert car car lynne, examples of where the north may be heading in a reformist direction with regard to their economy or their politics? >> i hate to use the word reform because it stirs up all sorts of impressions, different impressions in people's minds. the question is there going to be change in their economic policies? kim congress ewen indicated a year ago that he was going to begin town that path. he used the term they weren't going to have to tighten their belts anymore. i think he's continued that in his latest policy statements, and the new prime minister that he appointed strongly suggests that they're going to push ahead with that policy. it's not going to unfold in isolation, however. it's going to depend on how the outside world reacts to it. >> woodruff: disappoint... this appointment of the new premiere who was the premiere before, what do you see of significance there? >> i think we need to look at north korean actions. we've had times where we
is dealing with a lot when it comes to foreign policy. chris stirewalt is our editor and host of power play live. and what a mess we're dealing with right now and he's got a lot of goals he wants to achieve in the second term as a president, from immigration reform and push for gay marriage and gun control, now we've got problems with north korea, we've got problems with syria and ongoing problems with iran and the one with north korea has really reared its head in earnest in the past couple of weeks, but we seem to be taking it very seriously. >> well, look, we always, the united states had a lot of success with the cleptcratic leader kim jong-il. and whether or not his son is equally available to bribe, i don't know, it's getting weird. things are getting weird over there. and things could get bad in a hurry and this is the problem for presidents in their second terms particularly. you've got an agenda at home you want to deal with and care about. what you didn't hear in the president's second inaugural address, you didn't hear much in his state of the union address, was about foreign pol
weren't in the movement but saw our nation's politics changed by it. in foreign policy terms, vietnam changed us to the extent that this gulf disaster wasn't supposed to happen, and we weren't supposed to get into another war in which our leaders were not honest why we were getting into another war in the first place. we weren't supposed to do that again. we did do that again, but we thought that was not supposed to happen. the other way vietnam was supposed to have changed us as a country, specifically about the americans who fought there. long, very bloody, guerrilla by men who did not want to fight it but were made to and when they got home and too often with too much regularity, we failed to separate the men who had no choice to fight or the men who chose to fight from the fact the war they fought was an unpopular war. the more than 2.5 million veterans were not welcomed home the way they should have been. that translated too often to them not getting medical care and benefits and policy attention they deserved and had been promised when they went over there. after vietnam, howeve
thing he did in foreign policy. >> guest: i suppose i would concede that. i don't know what else to say about president bush. i don't think he was concerned substantively about a great deal of things and certainly not about black issues. so i am at a loss for words to comment about that, about. . >> host: rodney, go ahead with your question or comment for randall robinson. >> caller: it is a pleasure and honor to speak with you. the reason i was calling is a black -- black wealth disparities in the american bank system where we lost most of our wealth and assets due to fraud in the housing sector and lower wages. under the obama administration why african-americans are doing worse under his administration more than the previous administration? >> guest: the unemployment among blacks is now 16 plus%. so whites are doing marginally better, blacks are doing significantly worse. the question is how much of that do we ascribe to the president? there are other market forces and factors, i suppose. but that is a good question to put to the president. i should say at the same time that nobody w
your back. that's normally good foreign policy. we are caught in a cycle here where it is provocation sanction, pro co location -- provocation, sanction. this is clearly not working. something else is going on here. i would -- and i don't know if if -- i get the b52's. they brought in b52's and the b-2 nuclear weapons and nuclear systems to fly them over. >> i told them they would do that. >> they are sending a message to the north koreans and the south koreans and to the american public we are on this. that also may have -- you know, that may also have reverb bracing. my main thing is we need to get through this next period. we need to survive, provocations, mistakes and errors. we need a little stability and that's what i am looking for. >> one of the other things we said was in a state of war, and it feels like a perpetual state of war and that is the case. there was never any kind of peace agreement after the korean war. what about working toward something like that? that may help them feel better. i hate to even think about the north koreans feelings given what they are going thr
is foreign policy chapter and it's not a neocon sort of argument that it's more of reflection of how we believe our place in the world is what it is. and, finally, death which is inevitable for most of us and is about abortion for the most part. >> this book is being published now in march. how long did you have to put the book together and we thinking of obama's second term? what was the timeline? >> i didn't think that romney would win. i wrote that. but i'd put this together rather quickly. i've been thinking about it but the book, it's not a huge book because how much can you read about the four horsemen really? but it is a slim book but it took about a month to write. >> currently we -- the budget situation, what are your thoughts? >> i think there's an ideological divide in washington now that's going to be hard to come to sort of any consensus or agreement on what to do. we are in bad shape. i like the paul ryan budget they cannot recently. the paul ryan budget that came out recently to understand a lot of the ideas in that budget into think republicans need more ideas. i'm happy
's going to happen there. syria, iran. do you think that this president is capable of dealing with foreign policy issues in a way that makes you sleep at night, patrick buchanan. >> things are going to hell in a hand basket in the middle east. >> sean: and north africa and-- >> and bali. look, i'll say this, what the chinese are doing in this open, naked cyber warfare, cyber theft and cyber invasion, they've been doing this a long time and for the first time mr. obama, in the form of mr. donlan named them as the main perpetrator of cyber warfare against the united states. we're going to have to review and have a dramatic reappraisal of our entire policy engaging with the china. >> sean: pat. >> and the trade-- >> they carry an awful lot of american debt. >> they carry a trillion dollars worth of american debt and we're giving them 300 billion in trade every year and ask our questions, is it a wise policy basically to let them cart off part of the american market for all the stuff that-- >> that's what we've done a slap on the wrist and call them out, we yiidentify them and don't do anythin
and democratic foreign policy officials, th the goal is to sed reinforcement on our allies and make it clear -- lou: here is the deal weaker deal, we have 35,000 troops along the dmz. with 35,000 troops on that dmz, the u.s. is proved to be, we're damn foolies to leave the troops there. i find it inexcusable. what do you think? >> they have been the trip wire. lou: i don't neat 35,000 people -- need 35,000 people being -- >> the only way you can deal with this guy is a show of strong, i wish that show of strong would be some ora or othr allies. lou: here is what you don't like. we're under no obligation that i can so as americans, just because we're the one super power. we're under no obligation, what so ever to exposure pilots, and our troops to risk. we have done so for past 20 years. in case of north korea, why not instead of this, send a icbm . >> are yo you arguing that south korea is no longer a -- lou: i am arguing i do not need to see another american casualty because we have an allie in south korea. if north korea deserves a military response give them a military strong. >> from the
that will never stop. >> the over -- overriding part of this business insider noted for their in depth foreign policy and reporting and investigation, i will read this sentence, while indefinite detain meant without trial may be morally offensive, the overriding philosophy on base these days is to treat the detainees really well. let's imagine that you have been pulled from a battlefield and you will not be charged with anything. you will be here in a cage. it is a very, very nice cage. you don't know what you are being charged for. you don't know if you are ever going to get out. you don't know anything. maybe that is not going to be treated absurdly well. maybe that is a psychological horror show regardless of anything else. yes the basic charge of oh they are using a hunger strike to get attention, yes. the democrats have stopped caring about guantanamo bay now that they run it. 24r* is still discretionary power in the department of defense. they certify this every year. if they wanted to, they could say this sucks and we are closing it down, and it would happen. >> i agree with everything
secretary of state i was determined to weave this perspective into the fabric of american foreign policies. we did put women on the agenda and made it a centerpiece of all that we did. >> meanwhile biden presented an award to three brothers who founded an organization to fight human trafficking in india was well-received and feeling like the underdog in the room, perhaps by an overcompensated a bit. he ad libbed a joke about his first presidential campaign sunk by plagiarism charges. >> i have been trying to get your cell phone. i wanted permission to quote the speech you are about to give. i want to ask permission now wherever you are in front of everyone. is it okay? you have not given the speech yet. but i want to quote from it. during the speech she let me read that she is about to deliver, i want to make it clear, i am attributing this to valerie. >> a lot of folks that went over very well. >> rocky road as president obama heads to denver to press for gun control laws. we will talk to the colorado governor who had his own change of heart. first a look ahead at the politics planner and
. i think everybody is trying to take deep breaths, but there is more alarm among is the foreign policy people that i speak to in washington than i have ever heard on north korea, just because of the level of unpredictability. we had hope when kim jong-un came into power this could be somebody we could perhaps talk to and perhaps have negotiations with. that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. >> let's not forget that three years ago, north korea sank a south korean ship, which left 46 people dead. so the idea this is all bluster, there is actually action. he has sort of put his money where his mouth is, if you will, or at least his father did. and to what degree does he feel like he needs to follow in those footsteps? there are huge questions just how serious the north is. >> there are questions, too about whether kim jong-un is doing this to shore up domestic support. this is familiar behavior, but that's certainly one of the questions. one of the things the administration is trying to do as well, to eliminate the variables, is reduce the need, therefore pressure, for so
immigration, like what matters on education and underemployment and unemployme unemployment. foreign policy and we've got to stop boxing latino leaders into one conversation. so this weekend 16 leaders from the community asked about a variety of subjects. >> i hope you bring ted cruz, friend of mine. of marco rubio, great americans with great stories and great inspirational stories. let me ask you, tavis tavis. and you've been watching the ben carson issue and he's been attacked. every single african-american conservative i know is called the most horrific names on a regular basis, only for the fact that they are conservative. i don't hear anybody on the left, any prominent civil rights activist, i don't hear a peep out of them and i'm a little tired of the abuse that friend of mine, and people that i interview, have to take because of their political beliefs. why doesn't-- where are the civil rights leaders? why aren't they speaking out? >> first of all, if i nonyou were going this route i would have brought my violin, number one. number two-- >> if you're called an uncle tom or a house ne
was right. state has a very important role to play in our foreign policy, obviously, but also in the interagency relationships that you mentioned, homeland security, which, as you all knew, is a new agency. but they all connect. there is not an interest, not a connection point that doesn't affect all the other connection points that serve our interests, whether it's homeland interests, economic interest, diplomatic interests, and military interests, energy interest, cyber interest, whatever. they are all connected in. omen security, the way it is structured -- and i was there in the senate when we rolled up agencies and the one -- has authorities in a rather significant for homeland security. we are still working through how we all work together. and that's ok. but i think another part of your question is how do you maximize and add value to each the bigger purpose and objective in this country? you are exactly right. you have just identified in my opinion may be the most important dimension of where we will all have to go as government leaders in this country over the next fe
is north korea willing to go? that is really the question that is driving u.s. foreign policy right now. there are signs that the north has been moving missiles around to perhaps better position them for an attack on south korea or other u.s. allies in the region. the pentagon this week has been ramping up missile defenses in that part of the world as the state department tries to figure out what is going to happen next. >> we are taking the appropriate steps in terms of defense of the united states, in terms of defense of our allies, so the republic of korea and japan. we are making those clear. and we are watching very closely, obviously. >> watching closely but trying to figure out what north korean leader kim jong un is going to do next or achieve is difficult. u.n. attorney general is concerned with this level of brinksmanship, anything can happen. >> nuclear threats is not the game. disvery serious. -- it is very serious. i think they have gone too far in their rhetoric. and i'm concerned that if by any misjudgment, by any miscalculation of the situation, any unwanted crisis happe
of foreign policy and the necessity of military engagement. >> we heard that you're thankful for another chance. the fact that you were forced into a runoff and you're tied with a democrat in a reliably red district, does this suggest that voters are still hez about the? still not quite sold on your redemption? >> well, i would respectfully say, jake, if we were to put you in there with 15 other candidates, it's difficult to split a pie 16 ways and end up without a runoff. yok it's been done here. certainly along the coast. it was anticipated thatten deed there would be a runoff. just a question of whether or not we would end up in it. we are thankful that we did. we ended up with the nomination last night. i gez to elizabeth colbert-busch, it's important on the republican side. we've had 16 contestants in this thing. she's had a clear step to the nomination without the battle scars that we have had on this point. at this point she's relatively undefined. the doesn't have a track record or voting record with regards to votes. so the people of the first district become more clear on what
foreign policy of brinkmanship and blackmail. they push things to the edge hoping to get concessions from china, from south korea, and from the united states and unfortunately they have in the past. so there is this moral hazard where governments have rewarded bad north korean behavior. this is the latest. they have promised them to make seoul a sea of fire, to nuke new york and washington, et cetera, et cetera. melissa: right. >> this is just the latest thing. now at the basic level you have to be concerned that they may have the ability to build more nuclear weapons but there are other things afoot i'm actually more worried about. melissa: like what? >> for instance, north korea may have a uranium based program. in fact we know they have a uranium-based program for building nuclear weapons. the pruitt tone yum plant can build one nuclear weapon a year but a rue rain yum program can produce a lot more than that also north korea is developing a mobile intercontinental ballistic missile which will increase survivability and mobility of their nuclear force. there is a lot of bad news. melis
're talking about putting it back. the north koreaians have this foreign policy, basically foreign policy of brinkmanship and blackmail. that's what they're doing here. they're pushing us to the edge hoping to get concessions from south korea, united states and even china to turn down the temperature. we've seen this many, many times. i'm not telling you not to take these threats seriously. it is a very serious situation on the korean peninsula. north korea will have to do something because if you continue to make these threats and fulfill none of them, the threats lose their leverage. so we have to be very concerned. bill: will we or others concede to what they want? >> it's very possible. it's very possible that they will. i don't believe the obama administration should but it's very possible that they could come to some sort of an agreement. maybe they come back to the nuclear negotiating table and they get some sort of food aid or something. maybe they get it from china. but the problem is that you're rewarding bad behavior. that is a moral hazard. bill: you have a new leader and a yo
that i began in 1976 to galvanize african-american opinion on foreign-policy issues, particularly issues that concern the black world, u.s. policy towards africa, the caribbean and latin america. so transafrica of course was the organization that used its incher mentalities to galvanize american opposition to apartheid and with the embassy arrests that we were able to organize the arrest of 5000 people and in the 1980s and 1984 and the next year, and with that working with members of congress. we won the support for the set of sanctions that president reagan vetoed and his veto was overridden by a republican-controlled senate excess of the work we did and the millions we organized to make a difference. that, coupled with the great work that was being done in south africa led to a new africa that we see today. but we have been doing that work over a period of time. i had been there 25 years when i stepped down. >> host: who are maxey and doris robinson? >> guest: maxie robinson was my father and doris robinson was my mother. and i have already introduced you to them. they had strong opini
together. you continue to be a role model for women and for men and foreign policy. we thank you and applaud all that you do. thank you. [laughter] -- [applause] i was hoping to start the speech by saying spring has arrived. i will drop that line. spring would fully arrive for the women of the middle east and north africa. population region's -- those many of whom were on the front lines of the credit change -- democratic change party night equal -- change rd knight equal rights after the resolution -- deliver the same speech about the importance of women. we are moving beyond that speech into the post rhetoric stage of this issue. i want to ask you a few questions. about increasing the role of women in the arab world? beyond feeling good about ourselves. if so, why? will the full inclusion of women practically and lyrically and economically speaking -- politically and economically speaking make a difference amid this transition. how will we know what success looks like? on the first issue -- fairness and human dignity are universal values. we tend to embrace those values very s
for women and four men in foreign policy, and we thank you, and we applaud all you do, so thank you. [applause] well, i was hoping to start the speech by saying "spring has finally arrived," but i am going to drop that line. but i do wish that springwood fully arrived for the women of the middle east and north africa -- that spring would fully arrive. the region's population, many of whom were on the front lines of democratic change in -- theyunisia, libya are denied equal or even remotely equal roles after the -- i amon, but fear not not going to deliver the speech you have heard a million times before about the importance of women. i think we are moving beyond that speech in to what i think of as the post-rhetoric stage of the issue. instead, i want to ask you a few provocative questions. about thereally care role of women in the arab world? beyond just feeling good about ourselves. if so, why? really, will the full inclusion of women, practically speaking, politically speaking, economically speaking -- is it really going to make a difference amid this uncertain ?- even chaotic --
to institutionalized women and girls and make them the center of american foreign policy, and he said this week, president obama and this administration share real concerns about the direction that egypt appears to be moving in. it is our hope there's still time to turn the corner. the recent arrest, violence in the streets, exclusivity with respect to the opposition and public ways that make a difference to all people in egypt, that is a concern today. so as we condemn the attacks -- attacks everywhere in the world and urge government to prosecute those responsible, we recognize that sexual violence is endemic across societies not only in egypt, not only in this region, in many parts of the world, and not only in cities, but in rural communities. well, let's not have folia downer day here. if faugh many of the women also shared some good news stories. won moroccan woman told me she is the youngest female parliamentarian and morocco. she looked about 12, but i'm sure she was not. she was the first corona her village to go to school, to attend a university, become elected to public office. she s
adviser and now his deputy as the new chief of staff, really dictated policy. to the foreign policy professionals. i think the president makes policy. and i do sit at the principal's committee table with the other cabinet-level national security officials. and now going on five years doing that. i can tell you that we all have a voice. we all have input. the president is very solicitous not only of the views of the members of cabinet sitting around the table, but those around the wall, the deputies and he puts the recommendations together and ultimately makes a decision and i have not ever felt that on the most critical issues that my voice hasn't been heard. it doesn't mean that i've been on the winning side of every issue, but i've always felt that my perspective was taken seriously. that i had a full opportunity to air it and the issues were weighed and debated in an open and transparent way. now you know, different presidents and different administrations model their national security architecture in different ways. we do have an active and energetic national security staff and
of the foreign policy goals of the administration. >> and the idea of not turning canada into a petro-state. i want to give you a last word. is there disappointment in the environmental community that the white house hasn't done more and been more aggressive? >> i think it's part of our job to see how much, how much progress we can make during this administration. the good news here is that over the last four years, we have actually made great progress in replacing coal, a little bit of gas and oil with clean energy. to the extent that solar, the price of solar has come down by 80% over the last five years. and the price of wind has dropped significantly at the same time. so in places like louisiana and places like north dakota, with this pipeline would go through, we're seeing clean energy coming in cheaper. than fossil fuels. so that offers a lot of promise for the work we need to do in the years ahead. >> a that hopeful note with have to be the last word. thank you so much to the sierra club's michael bruin. >>> a new week and that means it must be time to start using hillary clinton and 20
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 116 (some duplicates have been removed)